"Atwill is the one dude I get asked about most often. And now apparently even Dawkins is tweeting about Atwill, thanks to his upcoming venture into England later this month to sell his weird Roman Conspiracy variety of Jesus mythicism. To get the gist you can check out his PR puff piece. Thomas Verenna has already written a deconstruction of that. Notably even Acharya S (D.M. Murdock) doesn’t buy Atwill’s thesis, declaring that she does “not concur with Atwill’s Josephus/Flavian thesis” and that “the Flavians, including Josephus, did not compose the canonical gospels as we have them.” Robert Price has similarly soundly debunked his book, even after strongly wanting to like it."

Richard Carrier wrote:

"Atwill is best known as the author of Caesar’s Messiah (subtitle: “The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus,” Roman meaning the Roman imperial family…yeah). In this Atwill argues “Jesus [is] the invention of a Roman emperor” and that the entire (?) New Testament was written by “the first-century historian Flavius Josephus” who left clues to his scheme by littering secret hidden coded “parallels” in his book The Jewish War. Atwill claims to prove “the Romans directed the writing of both” the JW and the NT, in order “to offer a vision of a ‘peaceful Messiah’ who would serve as an alternative to the revolutionary leaders who were rocking first-century Israel and threatening Rome,” and also (apparently) as a laughing joke on the Jews (Atwill variously admits or denies he argues the latter, but it became clear in our correspondence, which I will reproduce below…it’s weird because making fun of the Jews kind of contradicts the supposedly serious aim of persuading the Jews, yet Atwill seems to want the imperial goal to have simultaneously been both)."

Richard Carrier wrote:

"I honestly shouldn’t have to explain why this is absurd. But I’ll hit some highlights. Then I’ll reveal the reasons why I think Atwill is a total crank, and his work should be ignored, indeed everywhere warned against as among the worst of mythicism, not representative of any serious argument that Jesus didn’t exist. And that’s coming from me, someone who believes Jesus didn’t exist."

Richard Carrier wrote:

"... He doesn’t know what he is talking about, he has no valid method, he ignores alternative explanations of the evidence, and he invents anything he needs to force the evidence to fit his theory. And then when he is refuted, he claims he has been victorious. Alas, that pegs him. He is a crank."

I read this and consider it explains well what purveyors of alternative history have to do to be taken seriously, setting out methodological hurdles. Astrotheology, like all mythicist views, is an 'alternative history' which gets ignored and ridiculed. So we see Carrier's reference to 'even Acharya' criticising Atwill, implying again that he is sniffy about astrotheology and Egyptian roots of Christianity.

Atwill and his followers continue to debate Earl Doherty at the Jesus Mysteries Yahoo Group. I don't know why Earl bothers, as he routinely makes comments like Carrier's to indicate Atwill is crazy. It is useful to see how Carrier deals with such material, with initial patience followed by condemnation. But Carrier certainly gave Atwill enough rope to hang himself, metaphorically speaking. I find it extraordinary that Acharya's critics do not give her the courtesy of detailed engagement, indicating there is something deeply confronting in her ideas.

My own view about Atwill is that he presents a subconscious imperial mentality, assuming that only the imperial centre is capable of real thought, so the real thought in Christianity must have come from the Empire, despite the intense anti-imperial subversion that pervades the Christian message.

Speaking of other mythicist methods, one theme I have argued is that the 'as above so below' of Egyptian religion appears in the 'thy will be done in earth as in heaven' of the Lord's Prayer, as a reference to actual ancient observation of precession of the equinox as a primary basis of the Christ Myth. I think this hypothesis can meet the criteria that Carrier helpfully outlines, whereas Atwill's construction is about as bad as Mormonism, and reflects a similar attitude of imperial exceptionalism.

There are real issues here of cultural presuppositions. My experience is that these can be nearly as strong among people of a scientific worldview as among the religious. That is not to criticise the scientific method, merely to say that in this context of religious history it can be hard to be rigorous, especially given the common skeptical syndrome of associating a novel new idea with other familiar ideas which are implausible.

Acharya has called the denial of Egyptian influence a neurosis. Because of the association between Egypt and magic, the implicit line of thinking in this anti-Egypt neurosis is that anything out of Egypt is irrational, so rational people should restrict their interests to other topics, such as Greek and Jewish sources alone. That is a syndrome which simply ignores vast areas that are essential to understanding how Christianity evolved. It really is just one step away from Atwill's assumption that only Romans are human beings, graciously including Greeks and Jews but keeping the blacks out.

Carrier's summary outline of the contradictions in the Gospels is classic, and makes me plan to read his book when it comes out.

So, at Carriers blog, a comment by Randall Johnson (RJ) brings up Tom Harper, Freke & Gandy and Acharya S in what looks to me like a big strawman set-up for Carrier to knock down. Carrier never passes up an opportunity to make snide comments directed at Acharya and here is no exception. It's best for us all if people simply stop asking Richard Carrier for his opinion of Acharya's work because he's only going to make snide comments instead of being honest and admitting he's never read it. In response to RJ, Carrier says:

Code:

"Murdock is a mixed bag. She also cites outdated scholarship, is not up on current research as much as she should be, and has a vicious temper (and like Atwill can never admit she’s wrong and gets outraged at any criticism and doesn’t seem to ever change her mind or learn anything). She typically (but not always) under-documents her most controversial or unusual claims, and, in my findings, generally because they don’t have any evidential or logical basis, yet she’ll mix in with those claims that are genuinely established; the problem with this is that laymen can’t tell when she is saying something that is well documented and when she is saying something that has no support at all (even her citations sometimes don’t help with this). So reading her can be more disinformation than information. I’ve written on Murdock before (here, here, here and also briefly here; as well as in here, where you can search the name to find two refs)."

Carrier has never actually proven any sources of hers to truly be "outdated scholarship" and seems to think that his opinion, based on his knee-jerk reactions, is enough to make such claims. Carrier believes she is "not up on current research as much as she should be" even though Carrier etc. are still trying catch up to her work. Dick Carrier wouldn't know that since he's never read her work. Carrier and his fanboys are still bludgeoning her to death with her first book from 1999. She has made necessary adjustments since then, so, just more smears to 'poison the well.' Plus the fact that she's already working on a 2nd edition to her first book.

She has "a vicious temper"?

Funny, how Carrier, after smearing her for 10 years without ever having read her work, thinks she should happily accept his caustic and intellectually dishonest criticisms. Carrier's ego, arrogance and conceit aside for a moment, I have yet to meet anyone who enjoys smears and lies spread about them. Carrier is a bully and apparently believes his bullying should continue unabated and that Acharya has no right to respond in defense of herself and that those who've actually read her work and know Carrier is full of it have no right to expose such disgusting smears and intellectual dishonesty. People I know with integrity and character don't allow such bullying to go on unchallenged. Carrier's constant attacks on Acharya ruin his own credibility.

It's a blatant lie to claim she doesn't correct her errors, she has for over 10 years so, to compare her in any way with Atwill is just another smear to poison the well.

In Carrier's 3rd link:

Code:

"CARRIER: Ehrman makes a false statement in his attempt to demonstrate that mythicist D.M. Murdock is unreliable as a scholar; but instead ends up proving he is unreliable as a scholar. Regarding a particular statue that Murdock cites as evidence of one of her theories, Ehrman claims “there is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else except in books like this, which love to make things up,” clearly meaning the statue she referred to never existed but was made up (by her).

A correct statement would have been “the statue she refers to does exist, or once did, but it’s not a statue of Peter but of the pagan god Priapus, of which we have many examples; the notion that this one represents Peter comes only from the imagination of theorists like her.” But that is not what he said, or anything like it. It’s clear to me that Ehrman simply didn’t research this claim. He assumed that because she presented only a drawing of it, and the statue looked ridiculous, that she was making this up. The result: he makes a false claim that misinforms readers and establishes that he is not a reliable critic of D.M. Murdock’s work. And as I pointed out, if he couldn’t even be troubled to check facts like this, what else “didn’t he check” in this book?"

"(Note that I do not say here or elsewhere that the bronze sculpture itself is a symbol of St. Peter, but only the cock or rooster, as in the story of Matthew 26:34, etc., in which Peter denies Christ three times before the cock crows. In several places elsewhere in my book I provide the citation for the cock/rooster being a symbol of St. Peter. I apologize for the ambiguity, but I was not in error here, despite the constant attempts to make me appear as such.)"

What's really funny here is the fact that those folks who actually read her book never had any such issues or confusion because she explains it in the book - only those who never read anything or just took Ehrman's or Carrier's word on this issue get so confused. That means neither Bart Ehrman nor Dick Carrier even read her book because if they did, they would never have gotten such a false idea. It just shows how even Dr. Ehrman, arguably the most famous New Testament scholar and Carrier, a self-proclaimed legend in his own mind and master of all scholars, can still be so blatantly biased, sloppy and make egregious errors.

Code:

Carrier likely knew about Acharya's comment above as of April of 2012 since he linked to her blog at that time: http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

Read this exchange between Carrier and gshelley showing that Carrier insists on repeating his error, as of July 27, 2012, despite gshelley quoting and citing Acharya's comment above: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794/comment-page-1#comment-17164

Carrier responded: "She was certainly implying that the statue in question represented Peter (there would be no point in mentioning the statue if she thought it was just a statue of Priapus, as in fact it is). I understand that she marshals arguments for that conclusion (and she is right to complain that Ehrman didn’t even mention them, much less address them), but to claim now that she meant it was just a statue of Priapus all along seems disingenuous to me. At any rate, Ehrman cannot be criticized for coming to that conclusion, given the way the picture is used and the caption is written."

Carrier even repeated this sloppy error in the book rebuttal to Erhman published in April 16, 2013 even though the very quote by Acharya above was posted in Carrier's own blog a full year before that book came out. So, Carrier has publicly REFUSED to make any effort to correct his sloppy and egregious error yet, he rants on endlessly about how Acharya never makes any corrections? How hypocritical can he get?

Dick Carrier is obviously biased against her with rigid prejudice and bigotry. He's incapable of ever acknowledging she may be right about anything and he influences others to do the same, all without ever reading her work, which is intellectually dishonest. Carrier owes her an official apology.

So this was “Kick Joe Atwill Week”http://vridar.org/2013/10/12/so-this-was-kick-joe-atwill-week/

So now, Neil, just has to drag Acharya into it. Why do these guys insist on dragging Acharya into this Atwill issue?

Quote:

"Now I think a number of readers here know I do not agree with the views of Acharya S. (D.M. Murdock). I have attempted to argue against her views and those of Robert Tulip on this blog. At no time did I utter a personal insult against either. Nor did I provocatively call their views “cow scat”. I did attempt to strictly address specific claims, words used, arguments made — and for my pains I was slandered like nobody’s business on the discussion forum of Acharya S. One does not argue against her or her followers in public and get away with it. I soon lost interest in continuing to argue my reasons for rejecting her thesis. I guess I let her win. She proved that personal insult and abuse can silence critics. Maybe I should continue."

- Neil Godfrey

What a complete load of lies from Godfrey. Neil Godfrey has been exposed in the Neil Godfrey's blog, Vridar thread. Sure as can be Godfrey will never allow any comments proving him wrong on that load of BS.

Then, there's a bizarre comment by voiceofreason:

Quote:

"...I actually got banned from her forum when I expressed that to describe Carrier as a misogynist is both uncalled for and factually inaccurate because he never attacked her for being a woman and he has no such criticisms added as her gender."

- voiceofreason467

No, VOR, you got banned for refusing to abide by the forum rules. Your argument had already been debunked. What a backstabber!!! VOR obviously still doesn't get it and wonders why he got banned!?! The fact remains that if Acharya were a male, Carrier would never have been constantly smearing her and attacking her for years on end (since at least 2004), all without ever reading a single book of hers. It doesn't even compare to Carrier's dismantling of Atwill as Carrier was able to make a case to prove Atwill wrong, Carrier has never been able to prove Acharya wrong on anything of significance. Of course, we know that Carrier's main goal is simply to 'POISON THE WELL' at all costs in order to prop himself up as supreme mythicist:

At 3:10 "The first thing to know is, forget about all the other mythicist theories ... so, I say, if you want a simple rule, basically, if you don't hear it from me (Dick Carrier) be skeptical of it."

There are plenty of other scholars performing work as good as & often much better than Carrier's. As Earl Doherty said, Carrier has an "ego the size of a bus."

None of this is even about Acharya anyway, it's about Atwill's provably false claims in his 'Caesar's Messiah' book & DVD and the recent PR campaign to get them marketed and advertized. It's like watching the Titanic sink as Atwill has no valid evidence to support his main arguments. Atwill will likely never live this down and it could reflect poorly on other freethinkers by having Atwill's marketing/advertizing stunt thrown in their face. I'm reminded of the little boy who cried wolf ... next time a freethinker or mythicist spends as much money on marketing and adverts across very expensive news media (highly unlikely) people might remember Atwill's stunt and say "um humm, sure, uh huhh" and never take it seriously. Atwill needs to put a stop to all this nonsense before more damage is done. He's already ruined his own credibility by making unsustainable and indefensible claims. Now, it's important for other freethinkers and mythicists to expose Atwill in order to let Atwill and Atwill alone own this nonsense.

Here we go again - whenever this subject flares up, people feel the need to lie about me and my work, including defamation and calumny implying that I am being "disingenuous," as in the above post.

I really do know what I meant when I wrote something, and I don't need the likes of Carrier sullying my reputation with such suspicions. Even so, sane people don't dismiss entire bodies of work based on one perceived error.

Also, how about minding your own business for a change? I don't go around obsessing on you and bringing you up every time I write about comparative religion and mythology. The condescending Carrier needs to read MY work, as it is HE who is not up on the most current research.

Notice also that defending one's position with vigor and continued evidence constitutes a "vicious temper." Ever since I first began publishing my work, I've been under a sustained attack by all kinds of individuals, both believing and disbelieving, with an endless stream of hate speech, insults, abuse, cyberstalking, lies, calumny, threats and so on. I NEVER started it, barely participated in it and generally ignored it. And yet *I* have a "vicious temper" for not putting up with this abuse!

This person also repeats the LIE that I never admit to being wrong. I am CONSTANTLY correcting what needs to be corrected, tweaked and made more accurate. How about instead of telling lies about my person, you actually READ my work? Is that simple request too "vicious" for you? If this individual actually knew me or my work, he would know, for example, that I have a second edition of my book The Christ Conspiracy in the works, which assuredly corrects errors, inaccuracies and oversights.

For others here, these are the standard sort of ad hom attacks used against pretty much anyone who fanatics may disagree with.

As concerns Godfrey, our main problem with him is that he doesn't even know my work to be making commentary and pronouncements on it. He thinks he knows it, without even reading it, and he makes his dismissive and critical remarks based on this fallacy of not even having studied it. This sort of dishonesty permeates this field, from Godfrey to Carrier to Ehrman and the rest. It seems to be a big ego trip - who can say the most critical things about work they haven't even read.

Never in my life would I have imagined that so many people could be so dishonest as to behave in this manner of constantly harping on and criticizing someone whose work they have not even studied. Standard ethics dictates otherwise, and even the nonscholarly "street people" know this fact.

NEWSFLASH: This isn't a little ego game here of who can be the "best mythicist." It's about bringing forth fascinating research. That's all there is to it. Now, if you can stop with the gossipy "bitchfests" and puffing up your chests, you might actually be able to take a look at the work itself.

But here is one of the real problems with these ranters - they can't stand that there are people out there who've read my work and think like this:

_________________Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Chris White's video/website hardly qualifies as a debunk, since he doesn't attempt to directly refute any evidence that Joe has presented in Caesar's Messiah. In other words one doesn't need to call upon the entire history of Iraq to prove there were no weapons of mass destruction. Richard Carrier is the only person I know whom has even looked at the evidence - even though it's only part of it. However, Richard seems only capable of looking at one parallel at a time without understanding the holism and supporting "bonds" between parallels; if you want to debunk Caesar's Messiah then you need to debunk a whole system of parallels that work together through an underlining "fabric" or mathematical framework:

By the time you start trying to debunk it you should realise that a designer created the parallels for the purpose of inventing Christianity as a sick joke.

Atwill's conclusions have been thoroughly debunked - it's not hard to do when one actually reads Greek and knows the primary sources. Acharya tried to help him and explain to him that late puns in English are not credible evidence of ancient Greek that did not exist at the time. Some of Atwill's claims are an embarrassment. It's sad that they edited out all of Acharya's criticisms from the DVD. She did not want to be apart of it and told them so because she knew Atwill was way bad wrong but, they promised her critique would be heard - obviously all of that got edited out. Now, Acharya is left to deal with the fallout for even being apart of it.

Quote:

"Please note that I do not concur with Atwill's Josephus/Flavian thesis vis-a-vis the origin of the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."

Freethinkaluva22, that link to Acharya's blog is not working? Do you have a valid URL please? You know how many times Acharya has had to take on people professing to thoroughly debunk her Zeitgeist claims, so therefore, you should know that few rebuttals qualify in this day and age of celebrity cults and government propaganda where people's ability to reason has been crippled - not necessarily through any lack of qualifications, knowledge or specialist subjects - but through lack of critical thinking / logic. Acharya is the one who could do with some help here - seeing patterns. Nothing to be embarrassed about.

What was left out of the DVD? Do you have a link to any details of that? I can understand criticisms being left out if they are of the same slanderous kind as per Richard Carrier, otherwise I doubt they could possibly be legit simply due to the fact that in Caesar's Messiah we have overwhelming evidence in the form of patterns from typology existing between the gospels and Josephus.

It sounds to me like one or more select few experts in ancient Greek might be trying to pull the wool over your eyes in the same way that the select few early Catholic clergy were the only authoritative figures possessing copies of the bible and able to claim Christ's divinity and control of the masses through their supposed higher knowledge and wisdom. However, anyone of lesser authority but possessing sufficient common sense knows that Christ was not divine; likewise, they should also be able to understand that perceived faulty translations of the gospels and Josephus - by independent expert scholars - are not responsible for so much satire existing in a typological system of parallels, where the reader is in fact directed where to find counterpart matches - resulting in such pathological satire coupled with conundrums and additional historical information - and that's ahead of analysing the actual text itself. So the parallels and satire are there by design - not through multiple false translations of many Greek puns and what not. And there's plenty of discussion at Richard Carriers' blog entry by Jerry Russell exposing Carrier's attempts to brainwash the public through his Greek deceptions.

You know how many times Acharya has had to take on people professing to thoroughly debunk her Zeitgeist claims, so therefore, you should know that few rebuttals qualify in this day and age of celebrity cults and government propaganda where people's ability to reason has been crippled - not necessarily through any lack of qualifications, knowledge or specialist subjects - but through lack of critical thinking / logic. Acharya is the one who could do with some help here - seeing patterns. Nothing to be embarrassed about.

We've got no love for Carrier around here, but Atwill is in error and there's nothing that can be done about that fact because the evidence does not support his claims. Those who've studied this subject for 20 or 30 years and specialize in ancient Greek like Acharya does already knows better than to accept Atwill's conclusion. Acharya knew this long before she was ever asked to be apart of Atwill's DVD and she made that fact abundantly clear to Atwill from the start. Acharya did NOT want to be apart of this project at all and she only did it after being assured her critique would be heard - it was not. A type of 'bait-and-switch' scam that would never have been necessary if Atwill had credible responses to her critique. She easily debunked Atwill's main conclusions because she actually knows what she's talking about, and, contrary to your opinion, she does not need any "help" on the matter.

There's no link to her critique it was simply left out of the DVD and contrary to your assumption, included zero "slander." Acharya is fully aware of the "typology existing between the gospels and Josephus" BECAUSE THE GOSPEL WRITERS USED HIS WORK - not the other way around as Atwill claims and the evidence for that is overwhelming. In her blog, Acharya states: "There remains no clear, scientific evidence for the emergence of the canonical gospels as we have them until the end of the second century." Atwill has no ground here at all, zip, notta, zero, nothing. Atwill fails miserably here as his claims are easily debunked with credible, valid facts and evidence. Atwill is flat out wrong here and that's all there is to it. Those who really know Greek and know this subject already know just how badly Atwill is wrong here, embarrassingly wrong, worse than wrong as Atwill ruins his own credibility on the subject by making such demonstrably false claims. No need to waste any more time on this debunked subject.

gilius2k14 wrote:

Freethinkaluva22, that link to Acharya's blog is not working? Do you have a valid URL please? You know how many times Acharya has had to take on people professing to thoroughly debunk her Zeitgeist claims, so therefore, you should know that few rebuttals qualify in this day and age of celebrity cults and government propaganda where people's ability to reason has been crippled - not necessarily through any lack of qualifications, knowledge or specialist subjects - but through lack of critical thinking / logic. Acharya is the one who could do with some help here - seeing patterns. Nothing to be embarrassed about.

What was left out of the DVD? Do you have a link to any details of that? I can understand criticisms being left out if they are of the same slanderous kind as per Richard Carrier, otherwise I doubt they could possibly be legit simply due to the fact that in Caesar's Messiah we have overwhelming evidence in the form of patterns from typology existing between the gospels and Josephus.

It sounds to me like one or more select few experts in ancient Greek might be trying to pull the wool over your eyes in the same way that the select few early Catholic clergy were the only authoritative figures possessing copies of the bible and able to claim Christ's divinity and control of the masses through their supposed higher knowledge and wisdom. However, anyone of lesser authority but possessing sufficient common sense knows that Christ was not divine; likewise, they should also be able to understand that perceived faulty translations of the gospels and Josephus - by independent expert scholars - are not responsible for so much satire existing in a typological system of parallels, where the reader is in fact directed where to find counterpart matches - resulting in such pathological satire coupled with conundrums and additional historical information - and that's ahead of analysing the actual text itself. So the parallels and satire are there by design - not through multiple false translations of many Greek puns and what not. And there's plenty of discussion at Richard Carriers' blog entry by Jerry Russell exposing Carrier's attempts to brainwash the public through his Greek deceptions.

OK, so you and Acharya believe Atwill to be embarrassingly wrong, with no scientific evidence and of making false claims? But you admit this much:

Quote:

Acharya is fully aware of the "typology existing between the gospels and Josephus" BECAUSE THE GOSPEL WRITERS USED HIS WORK - not the other way around as Atwill claims

?

So, just to clarify: you agree that both the gospels and Josephus's Wars of the Jews share similarities because one is based on the other to some extent, i.e. of a similar opinion to Robert Price? In other words, specifically, you are saying that the gospels are in part based on Josephus? Is that right?

(BTW, Atwill doesn't claim the other way around - he claims a common source for both: the Flavians and their intellectual circle, which can be proven).

You should read Richard Carrier's responses to Jerry Russell because he's right. Jerry Russell even admits he doesn't know Greek and Carrier was right to respond: "This is why amateurs shouldn’t be doing this." Jerry Russell actually did make Atwill's arguments worse as Carrier states. Those who do not know ancient Greek have no business making such claims. Atwill and Jerry Russell are in error and it's not hard to debunk their claims when one actually knows ancient Greek and the subject matter, Atwill's arguments fall apart.

Now, Acharya still considers Atwill and company friends, of course, but, Atwill's 'Josephus/Flavian thesis' is in error and those who care about verified, credible evidence will never support it. Atwill needs to admit the error and retract his claims if he ever wants to regain his credibility. Atwill needs to actually listen to the critiques by Acharya S, Dr. Robert Price and Richard Carrier etc., as they're all trying to help him out. There's much Atwill is correct on and we can agree but, his main thesis that Josephus/Flavians wrote the gospels is demonstrably wrong and that will never change because it's provably false. Had Atwill ever read Acharya's work he'd already understand why the Josephus/Flavian thesis fails.

Quote:

"Please note that I do not concur with Atwill’s Josephus/Flavian thesis vis-a-vis the origin of the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There remains no clear, scientific evidence for the emergence of the canonical gospels as we have them until the end of the second century, when they suddenly burst onto the scene with a slew of commentary...."

So, you're saying: if somebody doesn't know Greek then that automatically excludes them from being able to analyse, interpret and understand the Bible in comparison with other works that have been translated multiple times independently by experts at both Greek language and English translations? Therefore, you and Carrier are effectively playing the elitist high priest role here, dismissing those you deem inferior through their lack of qualifications in subjects you believe to be highly relevant/significant to Atwill's claims. Perhaps only you "high priests of Atheism" should be allowed copies of the Bible, and all translations burned? You clearly don't want the "amateurs" to know that the Flavians invented Christianity. This is exactly the same technique used by the government for propaganda purposes. Either that, or you are one of Richard Carrier's victims, spreading the same lies and deceptions; Jerry already exposed such deceipt with the fish example. Atwill has also exposed Carrier's Gadara lies. I pointed out one of the most obvious satirical parallels to Carrier, and he simply waffled his way out of it before rediculing and dismissing everyone. He then repeats that same old gag about nobody knowing Greek!?

Joe is simply comparing 2 books. Credibility/authority/elitism shouldn't come into it. The Bible and Josephus were only designed as typological literature to be appreciated by those readers possessing sufficient logic and humour (does Richard Carrier have any Mensa qualifications?). We are not laughing at bad grammar, but we are laughing at the satirical connection between the gospels and Josephus that were not even translated by the same individual(s). The fact that 40+ parallels exist with 40+ examples of satire is not through any lousy translations, otherwise the text/context of the gospels and Josephus would not make any sense due to major distortions or loss of information. Lightning does not strike so many times between 2 books. Faughty translations is simply not responsible and goes against the logic of what is being claimed across multiple books with multiple parallels/satire. And they were not meant to be analysed at such a detailed level that removes any observable pattern; for example, I might say that my friend has one fig tree in his bedroom and one fig tree in his bathroom - both bearing good fruit of the sweet Iranian kind. Richard Carrier then comes along and says "No, the one in the bedroom doesn't count because one of the leaves isn't the right color and it isn't native to Greece".

You agree that parallels exist, so why do you think they are there? Why did the authors of the gospels decide to pair up so much information with Josephus? It's obvious that the designers had a clear purpose - at the satirical level and as a sanity piece for feeding the ego of Roman emperor Titus after his successful campaign in Judea. They also wanted to inform posterity and provide additional historical information using the same typological system.

Code:

Luke 4:42-43 good news (euaggelion) .. God .. I have been sent (Jesus) Sent away his son Titus .. WOTJ 3,9,446 + 3,10,503 good news (euaggelion) Luke 5:1-10 Lake of Gennesaret .. He (Jesus) .. Simon .. fish .. boats .. began to sink .. Simon Peter .. Do not be afraid .. Catch men Matt 4:19 Follow Me .. fishers of men Matt 11:21 Chorazin (Galilean village/peoples) lake of Gennesaret .. Jesus and his party.. WOTJ 3,10,463-484, 520-527 produces the Coracin fish .. vessels .. Romans caught them .. drowning .. attempted to swim .. I shall go into danger first .. Do not you therefore desert meLuke 6:1-11 Sabbath .. right hand Seventh day .. right hands WOTJ 4,2,92-104Luke 7:33, 8:26-30 John .. has a demon .. Gadarenes .. Legion John .. beginning to tyrannize .. wickedest .. WOTJ 4,7,389,408,413 too small for an army, and too many for a gang of thieves .. Gadara John ... filled the entire countryside WOTJ 7,8,263 with ten thousand instances of wickedness Demons ... are no other than WOTJ 7,6,185 the spirits of the wickedLuke 8:33 demons went out of the man and entered the swine .. herd ran violently .. into the lake they ran together to a certain village .. WOTJ 4,8,420-421,425,434 great multitude of young men, arming them .. wild beasts rushed .. into the currentLuke 9:18(Matt 16:19), 9:52 bound .. loosed .. He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before loose .. bound .. ordered the rest to meet him WOTJ 4,10,628-629 + 5,1,40 at Jerusalem, marched out Luke 11:29, 12:52, 13:7-9 the crowds were increasing .. divided .. three .. two .. tree .. fruit .. cut it down The Jews became still more and more in number WOTJ 5,2,78 + 5,3,105,107 .. divided .. three .. two .. cut down .. fruit treesLuke 14:28-32, 19:40 intending to build a tower .. conditions of peace .. stones .. cry out might make an impression upon the walls WOTJ 5,6,258-261,272 .. build .. tower .. terms of peace .. stone .. cried outLuke 19:43-44 build an embankment around you .. close you in .. and your children build a wall round about the whole city .. WOTJ 5,12,499 prevent the Jews from coming outLuke 21:10-11, 20 kingdom against kingdom .. earthquakes .. famines .. pestilences .. desolation Matt. 24:7, 15 kingdom against kingdom .. famines .. pestilences .. earthquakes .. abomination of desolation Dan. 9:27 sacrifice .. cease .. abominations .. desolate sacrifice .. failed WOTJ 6, 2, 94Luke 22:19 bread .. gave .. this is my body Mark 14:22 Jesus took bread .. eat .. this is my body John 19:29-33 hyssop .. Jesus .. dead .. they did not break his legs Luke 2:34-35 Mary .. his Mother .. Child .. pierce through your own soul Exodus 12:9, 12:21-22 roasted .. with its legs .. Passover lamb .. hyssop Mary .. Hyssop .. famine .. pierced WOTJ 6,3,201-209 through her very bowels .. slew her son .. roasted him .. eat .. half of him .. saved a .. portion (splanchon) siege .. Jerusalem .. WOTJ 6,9,420-421 feast of unleavened bread .. famine Jews .. besieged .. famine Severus, Sacred History 2.30 .. eating .. human bodiesLuke 23:46 Jesus .. up the ghost Matt 23:1-39, 24:1-44 Jesus spoke .. woe .. Woe .. Woe .. Woe .. Woe .. Woe .. Woe .. Woe Zechariah, son of Berechiah .. murdered between the temple and the altar the temple .. Jesus said .. not one stone shall be left here upon another sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age? will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes many false prophets will rise up and deceive many Let him .. on the housetop not .. take anything out of his house .. not go back to get his clothes. woe to those who are pregnant .. nursing babies .. lightning comes .. east .. west .. coming of the Son of Man wherever the carcass is .. eagles will be gathered together. Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven .. will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet .. four winds the thief would come .. house to be broken into Matt 25:1 bridegroom and the bride. Dan 7:13 Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! THE HOLY HOUSE .. WOTJ 6,5,271-287, 298-315 THE SIGNS THAT PRECEDED THIS DESTRUCTION many .. worn away by the famine .. mouths almost closed multitude of the robbers .. into the city round about the holy house, burnt all those places .. money .. garments .. precious goods reposited God commanded them .. great number of false prophets .. impose on the people chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds felt a quaking Jesus .. to cry aloud east .. west .. four winds .. bridegrooms and the brides took up the man .. number of severe stripes .. Woe, woe .. uttered .. Woe, woe .. Woe, woe .. Woe, woe.. gave up the ghost Zacharias the son of Baruch .. WOTJ 4,5,334-335, 341-343 in the middle of the temple, and slew him child sucking at her breast WOTJ 6,3,203Luke 23:50-53 Joseph .. from Arimathea .. body of Jesus .. took it down Luke 23:32-33 two .. death .. crucified crucified .. taken down (by Life of Flavius Josephus 75 Josephus bar Matthias) .. two diedLuke 23:56, 24:12 prepared spices and fragrant oils .. Peter ran to the tomb .. stooping down Mark 5:1-5 man with an unclean spirit .. tombs .. cutting himself with stones Mark 8:28-29 two demon-possessed men .. tombs John 6:70-71 one is a devil .. Simon the Iscariot John 21:18-24 another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go kind of death .. to glorify God .. Follow me .. Peter disciple whom Jesus loved .. it is my will that he remains Luke 22:31-31 Peter .. ready to go both to prison and to death Matt 16:22-25 Peter .. Satan .. Jesus told his diciples .. take up his cross and follow me Luke 23:26 Simon .. cross, for him to carry it behind Jesus Gal 2:11 Cephas (Simon) .. condemned John 5:26-29 all who are in the graves .. evil .. resurrection of condemnation search .. under ground .. WOTJ 6,9,429-434 ill savor of the dead bodies .. Simon .. slain .. John condemned to perpetual imprisonment John .. Sicarii .. wickedness WOTJ 7,8,263 Simon .. among .. stone-cutters WOTJ 7,2,26 Simon drawn into a proper place WOTJ 7,5,154Luke 24:16, 37 But their eyes were kept from recognising him .. supposed they had seen a spirit Matt. 28:17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him, but some doubted Mark 16:12 he appeared in another form John 21:4 the disciples did not know that it was Jesus they could not get any one of them .. WOTJ 7,10,418 to confess, that Caesar was their lord

Here is the satire but you need to read Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah to understand how this is derived via the above parallels (I haven't bothered quoting all of them). Understanding both the parallels and satire, you can then understand the proof of a Flavian invention of Christianity.

SATIREJesus and his apostles go fishing and Jesus says “next time you will catch men”, but “Jesus and his party” actually get caught like fish by the Romans—headed by Titus—in the same lake!

One of the lake’s Jewish fishing villages/peoples are named after a type of fish!

Jesus gets eaten by his mother Mary like a human Passover lamb!

Titus gets told about the story afterwards! (Mary eating her son)

The unnamed demoniac at Gadara in the New Testament is a satire of John, the rebel leader of the Sicarii. Simon is satirized in the same way.

The Jewish Sicarii recruits are described as a herd of pigs!

Out of the prisoners and animals captured by the Romans, none were pigs!

Simon and Jews are described as “stone-cutters”, i.e. people who cut themselves with stone.

Jesus tells Simon "when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." Jesus tells Simon to "follow me" and that his death will "glorify God." (martyr’s death)

Only the Son of Man (Titus) has the authority to hand out life and judgement; the Gospels' concept of "resurrection" refers to those Jews found "buried" within the "tombs" under Jerusalem at the end of the siege

Whilst John experiences starvation the Son of Man is the opposite: "eating and drinking".

Having maliciously satirized the leaders of the messianic movement as Jesus' Apostles, the authors of the New Testament then "record" Jesus lecturing his Apostles on their wickedness.

Continuing this black comedy then in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus actually calls the Apostle Simon "Satan." Notice that Jesus tells his disciples to "take up his cross" and follow.

Even hoi polloi might notice that the two Simons were suspiciously similar. The authors of the New Testament therefore changed the Apostle's name from "Simon" to Simon Peter," then to "Peter," and finally to "Cephas" as their narration came closer to the time when the real Simon led the rebellion.By constantly changing the Apostle's name, all the "Simons" in the New Testament seem to be lampoons of the Jewish leader

All the Marys in the New Testament may lampoon all the "rebellious female" members of the militant messianic movement, the SicariiJesus’ tomb is empty (he didn’t rise from the dead)

The disciples mistake one another for angels and thereby delude themselves into believing that their Messiah has risen from the dead.The soudarian was a funeral cloth used by the Romans - not by the Jews.

Notice how the author sets up the idea that the visitors to the tomb are irrational by his descriptions of their emotions and behaviours. Within the Flavian court, these would have been seen as the behaviours and emotions of the messianic Jews, who, from their perspective, were religious madmen who had deluded themselves into believing that the dead could rise. In such a state they cannot tell one "Jesus" from the other.

Origen wrote concerning his dismay over the fact that the name of the criminal, whom Jesus was imprisoned with, was "Jesus Barabbas," that is Jesus, the son of the Father. Although he did not recognise the name as satirical, he sensed intuitively that there was something wrong with Jesus' cellmate having a name so similar to his own.

When the elements of the passage regarding the magical "root" are viewed as a group, a picture emerges. The passage describes a single plant that was called "Baaras" (a play on the word for son, bar) which had been around since the time of Herod and had a magical power to drive out demons. The "son" would have lasted longer except that "those Jews" cut it down. What, other than a satire of Jesus, could this passage be?

Wars of the Jews and the New Testament both describe characters named "Eleazar" who have the Jesus-like attributes of having being born in Galilee, having the power to dispel demons, having been plotted against by the High Priests, having been scourged, having survived a crucifixion, and having risen from the dead. These "Eleazars" are the only individuals within these works with so many of Jesus' attributes.

This use of the word "pruned" to describe the fate of the "certain young man" is part of a broad satirical theme within the New Testament. The leaders of the Jewish rebellion were used as the historical "tree" onto which Christianity was "grafted." Notice that Paul states that it is an olive tree that is to be grafted onto - the olive tree being, of course, the "tree" that would be "pruned" on the Mount of Olives. The "olive tree" that is "pruned" so that Christianity could be "grafted in" just happens to be on the "Mount of Olives" in a garden named "Gethsemane," a word that means "olive press"!

Naming the garden "olive press" where Jesus' sweat is compared to drops of blood, is also part of the satiric theme. The passage in the Gospel of Luke that contains the related darkly humorous image, that of drops of blood that spill from Jesus being like the liquid squeezed from grapes or olives in a press.

Titus is actually described by Josephus in the passage as a king when, in fact at that moment he is only the son of the emperor. This reference to Titus as a king has caught the attention of scholars, who have wondered why Josephus would have made such an obvious error. Josephus, of course, has not forgotten Titus' title. Rather, he is making a comment as to which "king", attacked in a garden outside Jerusalem, enjoys God's favour - Jesus, the king of the Jews or Titus, the "king" of the Romans. Josephus seems to be making a point as to the relative value of faith in the divine and faith in one's self, which was perhaps the same thing to the Flavians, since they saw themselves as gods.

These puzzles reveal the name of the real Jewish saviour who Titus captured on the Mount of Olives and stole the title of "Christ" from - Eleazar, who was satirised as "Lazarus" within the New Testament. Eleazar, like Simon and John, had his identity stolen by the Romans. He was the historical "Christ" who "rose" from the dead. As he was only human, however, Eleazar could not return to life. The puzzles also reveal the that Titus is the "Jesus" Christianity has unknowingly worshiped.

The "good portion" being served at Martha's house is the human flesh of Mary's unnamed son - revealed as Lazarus! Adding to the Jesus-like attributes, Eleazar/Lazarus was the name of the "Christ" captured on the Mount of Olives, survived a crucifixion, and was a son of a Mary whose flesh was eaten as a symbolic Pascal lamb. Since the real Messiah, Lazarus, has been eaten, his tomb is therefore empty. Jesus had merely raised Lazarus' physical body from his tomb. Someone who has been dead for four days (Jesus waited two days before he started out to visit Lazarus, thereby allowing a total of four days to pass before he came to the tomb) cannot be restored to life - according to Jewish belief. This completes the scornful joke.

There seems to be many allegorical Jesuses. "Saviour Messiah" was not merely a name during this era but also a title, one that anyone who saw himself as having been sent by God to "save" Judea might claim.

Titus' problem is that the Sicarii refuse to call him Lord, even after being tortured. To circumvent this stubbornness, Titus simply switches himself into the Jew's Messiah in John 21. The "Jesus" they follow - "Jesus, the son of Shaphat, the principal head of a band of robbers" - is not on the beach because Titus has killed him. Josephus records his death in the passage stating that: "Titus had slain the authors of this revolt," clearly indicating Jesus. Thus deluded, the disciples then do Titus's bidding, helping the Romans capture the Jewish rebels swimming in the Sea of Tiberias by "casting their net." The satire is a perfect synopsis of the real intent of Christianity, which is to "convert" the followers of the Jewish Messiah into followers of Caesar without their knowing it.

Having achieved his goal, Titus, the "Lord," then sits down with his new "disciples" for a breakfast of "bread" and "fish" (synonyms for human flesh). The disciples don't ask his name - would give away the fact that his name is Titus - but "know" that he is the "Lord." The interaction between the New Testament and Wars of the Jews identifies the "fish" that Titus served to his new disciples in John 21 as the "putrefied" bodies of the "fish" killed by the Romans during the battle. This putrid smell of the "fish" on the beach, parallels the stench recorded in the other passages of cannibalism - the tomb of Lazarus in the New Testament and Mary's son in Wars of the Jews. And the "bread" that the disciples eat is also identified in the New Testament, as the flesh of the Messiah who was "raised from the dead." To make clear that it is the body of the "Son of Man" that the disciples are feasting on, John 21 states that this is "the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead." The author is including this detail at this point, because the "Jesus" who actually rose "from the dead" was Lazarus, who "showed himself" to the disciples twice previously, first at his "resurrection" and then again at the "feast of Lazarus." The disciples are being satirised as unwittingly feeding on the Messiah's body. The joke regarding "bread" in John 21 is that they are eating the same "loaf" that was eaten during the "feast of Lazarus".

The above analysis has implications for the sacrament of Communion. It suggests that the Romans deliberately created the ritual as a cruel joke on Christians.

Titus, who carried away the Messiah - "pruned" on the Mount of Olives - becomes a "gardener" who is mistaken for Jesus!There is a confession by the Flavians in the story that is more clearly visible in the original language. To construct the confession, the author used a series of puns linked to the word "mythos" or myth. Josephus described Mary's son as a "mythos" or "myth for the world". He goes on to state that the killing of the myth for the world will be seen as a "mysos" or "atrocity", that will be responded to by the Romans with "misos" or "bitter hatred". Jesus is a "myth for the world" (and "posterity"), whose killing was an "atrocity" that created "bitter hatred" of the Jews. The spread of the myth, of the Christ that the Jews killed, will "complete" the calamity of the Jews.

"Repent" is, of course, one of the key words of Jesus' ministry, and Caesar's usage of it brings the parallels between the passage and the Gospels even tighter. Jesus states repeatedly, "Repent, the Kingdom of God is at hand," but exactly what sin does he wish the Jews to repent of? Jesus never gives an answer to this question. However, when the passage is read as a satire of Christianity, the answer is clear - the sin that Jesus wished the Jews to "repent" was their rebellion against Rome.

Simon's nickname, "stone" satirises Josephus' depiction of Simon being captured with a group of stonecutters, who, of course, cut "stone". As he came "out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been" he was, therefore, the first "stone" upon which the new "temple", Christianity, was to be built. The creators of the Roman church had literally used the Sicarii leader as the "rock" upon which they "built" the church that would worship their pacifistic, tax-paying Messiah. By appropriating the real Simon's name and position of authority, they were able to "graft" the Apostle Simon onto the history of Christianity. Understanding that Simon's history was absorbed by Roman Christianity is important, in that it explains Rome's purported persecution of "Christians". The Romans did not so much invent a new religion as they simply transformed as existing one. Therefore, the traditions stating that Rome tortured "Christians" are correct, but these were "Christians" like the real Simon, not the Roman variety.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus states that the temple of Jerusalem will be destroyed. He then is asked what signs will foretell its destruction. Jesus responds with a list of signs that will occur before the coming of the "Son of Man," the individual whose visitation will bring about the destruction. Josephus also gives a list of signs that, as he relates it, actually did preceded the destruction of the temple. When these two lists of signs are compared, a number of parallels emerge. Firstly, both sets of signs are in relation to the coming destruction of the temple. The route the son of man would take was the direction of the march of the Roman army as they entered Judea on the east and carried their conquest westward. Like in Daniel 7:13, the New Testament Jesus sees a sign of the Son of Man in the sky, foreshadowing that the destruction is imminent. This is problematic for Christianity. If one accepts, as the early Christian scholars did (see Hippolytis c. 200 CE), that the signs Jesus gives in Matthew come to pass with the signs Josephus records, then it is difficult to contradict that Jesus was referring to Titus as the "Son of Man," chariots and troops being more synonymous with leaders of Roman armies than with religious sages. Of interest is the fact that on the Arch of Titus in Rome, there is a relief depicting both Titus' consecratio and his conquest of Jerusalem, which shows him being carried into the clouds on an eagle. Other scholars have noticed the connection between Jesus and Titus, that Josephus' sign regarding chariots and troops creates (see eighteenth-century theologian Reland). Since Jesus' eschatological prophecies were solely regarding the destruction of Judea by the Romans, they appear to envision him coming "at the head of the Roman army." Because Titus was the head of the army that destroyed Jerusalem, the parallel that this sign created between Jesus and him seems clear. Numerous scholars have understood the passage "For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together" to indicate that Jesus is foreseeing the Roman army gathering about the corpses amidst the destroyed temple (see Albert Barnes 1832).Continuing with the lists of signs, in the New Testament Jesus predicts "woe" for women who are suckling a child. Josephus shows that this came to pass in the "Son of Mary who was a human passover lamb" passage. Throughout Wars of the Jews, Josephus uses the word "robber" to describe the Jewish rebels.

The character that Jesus refers to, appeared not in his future but in his past. The prophet "Zachari'ah the son of Barachi'ah" is a character from the Old Testament, so how can Jesus be foreseeing him in the future? Further, how could Josephus then record that Jesus was right, that Zacharias' death occurred in 70 CE, along with the other prophecies envisioned by Jesus in Matthew 23 and 24? Jesus, in the midst of a series of predictions, describes something that has already occurred. Josephus then "records" it coming to pass, a second time, in the future. An absurd spoof, comparable with the woe-saying Jesus being struck dead by a stone. Imagine somebody today who, claiming to be able to see the future, gives a list of events that will happen in the coming century. At the end of the list, he predicts that Germany will lose Word War II. The comedy is ludicrous.

Christ's prophecies relate to the coming war between the Romans and the Jews, and that the "Son of God" (Titus) would lead the Romany army. At the the very beginning of the Roman assault on Jerusalem, the SON actually did "COMETH" to destroy Jerusalem. Jesus predicts that another nation, obviously Rome, will be given the "Kingdom of God." Jesus compares himself to a stone, one that if it strikes will "utterly crush." In other words, he is saying that the "Son of God" is a "stone" who will crush those who reject him, obviously meaning the Jews. He states this specifically within the context of Rome's use of power. This is, of course, the same satiric concept where Josephus records that a "Son," who is in fact a "stone," has crushed Jews. The destruction of the Jews has been seen as being quite appropriate vengeance for their destruction of the Saviour. If Rome did create Christianity to instil anti-Semitism, their invention certainly stands the test of time. Like Jesus' other ironic self-designations (fisher of men, living bread, living water), with "stone" the physical location where Jesus uses the expression is part of the send-up. He calls himself a "stone" rejected by the builders (meaning the Jews), which will "utterly crush" those on whom it falls, at the exact spot where Josephus records that stones did actually fall on Jews during the war with Rome. Josephus continues the satiric theme of Jesus calling himself a stone that will "crush." The woe-saying Jesus in his last words of slapstick comedy says "Woe, woe to myself also!" and “gives up the ghost” just as the Roman siege of Jerusalem begins, by a stone!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum